Wrong. It was an issue of whether or not the federal government could prevent a farmer from growing his own wheat so he didn't have to buy more that may have been produced in another state. I don't know where you got your description of the opinion but you either left out part of it or the source is flat-out wrong. Wickard had absolutely nothing to do with international commerce.

Interesting idea coming from someone who lives in a country that so proudly boasts it is the land of the free.

I thought it would have been obvious that I was referring to the Constitution's limitations on what a person could do throught the power of the state. Someone else understood this point, but you apparently did not.

You have an opinion that it is unconstitutional but as you have been shown there is nothing in the constitution that can be specifically said to back your opinion.

Excise tax: not uniform. Mandate non-compliance tax: not apportioned. Both are prohibited by the Constitution. Explicitly. Haven't you been paying attention??

If it was that simple healthcare would not have got this far. There is nothing in the tenth to contradict federal involvement in healthcare matters.

Wrong, again. The tenth amendmet explicitly states the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. In other words, anything the Constitution doesn't say the feds can do, the feds cannot do. So, without using the perverted interpretation of the commerce clause that you seem to prefer (which flies in the face of a limited government in the first place) please show me the clause of the Constitution that permits federal involvement in health care, health insurance, or a compulsion to purchase either.

It is within the constitution to create rights and rights are a federal issue. see the ninth amendment.

You also misunderstand the ninth amendment. The reason for its existence is that people were afraid that the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights would lead to those rights being the only ones protected from federal encroachment. It had nothing to do with empowering the federal government to "create" new rights, and it had even less to do with creating rights for some at the expense of others.

All that means is that the federal government must apply it uniformly.

Even if it were, the law would still fail because (as I've pointed out before) the tax is not applied uniformly.

However if incentive is needed to get the states to comply or cease an action, taxes can be used or withheld to do so. In layman terms it might seem a contradiction but in the legal sense it works.

This isn't about making states do what the feds want them to do, this is about making people do what the feds want them to do. And wahtever taxes are imposed, and for whatever reason they are imposed, they still must comply with the requirements of the Constitution, regardless of how well it allegedly "works".

Your making the mistake of pointing to one part of the constitution and trying to ignore another part. It doesn't work like that, hence the need for a court of judges. If it was all cut and dry then there would be no need for a panel.

I am making no such mistake. You are the mistaken one when you attempt to tie an explicit constitutional requirement with the findings of the Supreme Court when they were deciding a completely unrelated issue.

However your side that it is unconstitutional does not hold.

It may end up being decided against me, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Any literate individual can see I am correct.

Wrong. It was an issue of whether or not the federal government could prevent a farmer from growing his own wheat so he didn't have to buy more that may have been produced in another state. I don't know where you got your description of the opinion but you either left out part of it or the source is flat-out wrong. Wickard had absolutely nothing to do with international commerce.

I thought it would have been obvious that I was referring to the Constitution's limitations on what a person could do throught the power of the state. Someone else understood this point, but you apparently did not.

Excise tax: not uniform. Mandate non-compliance tax: not apportioned. Both are prohibited by the Constitution. Explicitly. Haven't you been paying attention??

Wrong, again. The tenth amendmet explicitly states the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. In other words, anything the Constitution doesn't say the feds can do, the feds cannot do. So, without using the perverted interpretation of the commerce clause that you seem to prefer (which flies in the face of a limited government in the first place) please show me the clause of the Constitution that permits federal involvement in health care, health insurance, or a compulsion to purchase either.

You also misunderstand the ninth amendment. The reason for its existence is that people were afraid that the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights would lead to those rights being the only ones protected from federal encroachment. It had nothing to do with empowering the federal government to "create" new rights, and it had even less to do with creating rights for some at the expense of others.

Even if it were, the law would still fail because (as I've pointed out before) the tax is not applied uniformly.

This isn't about making states do what the feds want them to do, this is about making people do what the feds want them to do. And wahtever taxes are imposed, and for whatever reason they are imposed, they still must comply with the requirements of the Constitution, regardless of how well it allegedly "works".

I am making no such mistake. You are the mistaken one when you attempt to tie an explicit constitutional requirement with the findings of the Supreme Court when they were deciding a completely unrelated issue.

It may end up being decided against me, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Any literate individual can see I am correct.

Because it is a completely different healthcare system. Its alll paid for by everyone through taxes. This way if you discriminate against one person you can against anyone. Example would be a sexually promiscuous man who has a STD. Why should he not pay for his treatment? Or if a mother chooses to have a child with downs syndrome, should she pay for her child treatment? Just because we live in a country with social Healthcare does not mean we live in a nanny state. Everyone pays for the NHS, everyone should have access to it. Its how it works.

You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney

Because it is a completely different healthcare system. Its alll paid for by everyone through taxes. This way if you discriminate against one person you can against anyone. Example would be a sexually promiscuous man who has a STD. Why should he not pay for his treatment? Or if a mother chooses to have a child with downs syndrome, should she pay for her child treatment? Just because we live in a country with social Healthcare does not mean we live in a nanny state. Everyone pays for the NHS, everyone should have access to it. Its how it works.

While I don't agree, I should ask why the NHS might go to that kind of system ?

Same as always, typical Torry right wing nonsense. Thankfully we lived in a place where the government actually cared about people then. Now all we see are cuts cuts cuts. Lied to once more by Eton public schoolboys. Damn its frustrating.

Ever heard the term "The Tragedy of the Commons" ?

No I have not. What would that be?

You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney

Same as always, typical Torry right wing nonsense. Thankfully we lived in a place where the government actually cared about people then. Now all we see are cuts cuts cuts. Lied to once more by Eton public schoolboys. Damn its frustrating.

Don't have time to read it right now...but that is very interesting lead in from your post. I am very curious.

The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by [COLOR=#0645ad]Garrett Hardin[/COLOR] and first published in the journal [COLOR=#0645ad]Science[/COLOR] in 1968.[COLOR=#0b0080][1][/COLOR] The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

**************************************

It is a big concern with government programs. If it is free....why do people care if they abuse it.

Hardin's essay has been widely criticized. Public policy experts have argued that Hardin's account of the breakdown of common grazing land was inaccurate, and that such commons were effectively managed to prevent overgrazing.[9] Referring to Hardin's crucial passage on page 1244,17 Partha Dasgupta, for example, comments that ‘it is difficult to find a passage of comparable length and fame that contains so many errors as the one quoted’.[10]

More significantly, criticism has been fueled by the "application" of Hardin's ideas to current policy issues. In particular, some authorities have read Hardin's work as specifically advocating the privatization of commonly owned resources. Consequently, resources that have traditionally been managed communally by local organizations have been enclosed or privatized. Ostensibly, this serves to "protect" such resources, but it ignores the pre-existing management, often appropriating resources and alienating indigenous (and frequently poor) populations. In effect, private or state use may result in worse outcomes than the previous management of commons.[11]

Some of this controversy stems from disagreement over whether individuals will always behave in the selfish fashion posited by Hardin. Others[12] have argued that even self-interested individuals will often find ways to cooperate, because collective restraint serves both the collective and individual interests. Hardin's piece has also been criticised as promoting the interests of Western economic ideology. G. N. Appell, an anthropologist, states: "Hardin's claim has been embraced as a sacred text by scholars and professionals in the practice of designing futures for others and imposing their own economic and environmental rationality on other social systems of which they have incomplete understanding and knowledge.

You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney